The effect of mother-infant group music classes on postnatal depression-A systematic review protocol.

BACKGROUND: Postnatal mental health problems affect 10-15% of women and can adversely impact on mother-infant interactions and bonding, the mother's mood, and feelings of competence. There is evidence that attending performing arts activities, such as singing, dancing, and listening to music, may improve maternal mental health with potential for an effect on postnatal depression.
METHODS: A systematic review will be conducted to assess the effect of mother-infant group music classes on postnatal depression compared to standard care, no control or wait list control. Studies will be included that report on postnatal depression. Further outcomes of interest include anxiety, stress, parenting competence, confidence and self-efficacy, perceived social support and mother-infant bonding. Infant and child outcomes measuring cognitive development, behaviour and social and emotional development will be included. Search databases to be used will be Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Scopus, CENTRAL, Web of Science, Maternity and Infant Care and discipline-specific journals for music. The Cochrane's Template for Intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide will be utilised to aid a detailed description, standardised assessment and quality assurance. Risk of bias will be assessed by the authors using the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions risk of bias tool. If sufficient studies are available, meta-analyses will be conducted to combine, compare and summarise the results of the studies for more precise estimates of effects. Where meta-analysis is not possible, results for each individual study will be reported through qualitative narrative data synthesis. DISCUSSION: This systematic review will identify and synthesise evidence of the measured effect of postnatal mother-infant interventions involving music on maternal psychological and psychosocial outcomes and infant/child outcomes. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: This protocol was registered with Prospero on 18 October 2021 (registration number CRD42021283691). https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021283691.

Introduction

Postnatal mental health problems, occurring after the birth of the baby, affect between 10–15 in every 100 women [1]. These problems range from mild symptoms of low mood, anxiety, difficulty coping with day-to-day living, irritability, fatigue, and loss of motivation through to postpartum psychosis and perinatal obsessive-compulsive disorder [1]. Factors such as lack of family or social support, poor housing, relationship breakdown, financial difficulty or previous traumatic life events may increase the risk of experiencing poor mental health [2]. The postnatal period is defined by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) as the 12 months following childbirth [3], while the World Health Organisation (WHO) recognises the first 6 weeks after childbirth as being defined as the postnatal period [4]. Postnatal mental health problems are usually identified and diagnosed by health professionals routinely involved with the mother’s postnatal care including the GP, midwife or health visitor and using validated assessment tools; Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS), Generalised Anxiety Disorder 7-item scale (GAD-7), Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9)) [3] to score severity of symptoms. A variety of treatments are delivered to women including pharmacological (prescribed anti-depressant or anti-anxiety medication) and psychological options involving a range of modalities (cognitive behavioural therapy, counselling, psychotherapy and volunteer peer support run by local community organisations and charities). NICE guidelines, and local and national mental health policies including Regional Perinatal Mental Health Care Pathways further assist in guiding this area of practice [5].

Mental illness is also associated with several types of health inequalities between people with different demographic, socioeconomic and geographical factors with these groups of postnatal mothers more likely to be vulnerable to postnatal depression [6]. These isolated families often experience prolonged stress due to unemployment, economic hardship and social exclusion, which impact their health status negatively. In addition, they are less likely to engage with traditional parenting services. Thus, social disadvantage may create a range of difficulties for parents in terms of knowledge, skills and resources [7,8].

Postnatal mental health problems can often go unidentified, undiagnosed, and untreated for many women or they do not meet the eligibility threshold for specialist mental health services after the birth of their baby [9]. Women report a lack of identification with the concept of postnatal depression and their symptoms may not necessarily be picked up by standard assessment tools [9].

Studies investigating the effect of poor postnatal mental health have found an adverse impact on attachment [10] and bonding, self-regulation and empathy [11]. Consequently, mothers find it difficult to engage with their infants both emotionally and behaviourally reducing their physical contact [12]. Provision by the mother of a less stimulating environment, being less attuned to their infant [13] and reduced parental competence and low mood in the mother [14] are also reported effects.

Music based interventions and health

The arts are fluid and diverse and have traditionally been difficult conceptually to define. It has been proposed that the arts comprise of five categories; performing arts; visual arts, design and craft; literature; culture; and online, digital, and electronic arts, all of which combine active and receptive engagement and flexibility for development [15]. Arts activities often combine multiple different components and are subsequently considered complex or multimodal interventions [16]. They may involve aesthetic engagement, imagination, sensory activation, cognitive stimulation, and emotion regulation. Dependant on its nature, arts-based health interventions could include social interaction, physical activity, interaction with health care settings and engagement with themes of health, as illustrated in Fancourt’s (2017) logic model linking the arts with health. Each of the individual components play their part in being linked with health outcomes. For example, emotion regulation is intrinsic to how we manage our mental health [17], given stress is a well-known risk factor for the onset and/or progression of a range of health conditions and cognitive stimulation when engaging with the arts provides the opportunity for skills development, also interrelated with mental health [18]. A key strength of arts projects is the combination of managing health promoting factors within aesthetic beauty and creative expression that provide motivation for engagement far beyond the regard of a particular aspect of good health and wellbeing [19], with further studies identifying additional benefits of resilience, vitality, purpose and quality of life [20].

Music falls under the category of performing arts [15]. Reported benefits of music include a contribution to lower levels of anxiety and biological stress in daily life [21,22] and an increase in self-esteem, confidence and self-worth [23].

The term ‘music’ is used within the literature to refer to a wide spectrum of activities ranging from listening to music which could be intentional or receptive on an individual basis, music listening that is shared with others, playing music using an instrument, composition of music, singing and musical movement such as dance [24]. Therefore, concise description of the music activity used within research is paramount to fully understand its benefits for participants of diverse ages, backgrounds and settings [24].

Research suggests the cause of postnatal depression has a multifactorial aetiology with biological and psychosocial risk factors [25]. The biopsychosocial model of health, first introduced by American psychiatrist, George Engel in 1977 proposed an integration of the biomedical model with psychological and social factors, which directly and indirectly impact on health [19]. This was recognised as aligning with the WHO and their 1948 definition of health as “a state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity” [26]. This encompassed a biopsychosocial approach and the model is still generally recognised as the dominant theoretical model of health [19]. Psychoneuroimmunology further demonstrates the bi-directional connection between the mind and immune system [19] and the understanding of neuroplasticity further supports these vital relationships and how music can be utilised. Neuroplasticity, the connectivity and non-connectivity of neurons, networks and regions in the brain determines perception and response to stimuli in the world around us. Human behaviour is controlled by a network of neurons often with the same function and it is understood that the strength of these connections between networks can be changed [27]. Neuroplasticity does not remain the same throughout the lifespan. Primarily it is the first 2–3 years of life, where millions of connections between neurons are being created but neuroplasticity continues at all levels throughout the lifespan of the human being [28]. Dopamine is a neurotransmitter in the brain that is shown to be present in reward-seeking behaviour, motivation [29] and reinforcement learning [30]. Neuroimaging studies have shown that listening to music may stimulate this same neural network. A neuroplasticity model of music therapy was subsequently created to provide a method using its five domains; social, emotional, cognitive, speech and communication and movement, to explain how neuroplasticity can be enhanced by music [27]. Further research seeking to explore the potential benefits of music among women with postnatal depression would therefore be timely.

A significant established psychosocial risk factor of postnatal depression is low, or lack of, social support [31]. A key ingredient of group interventions are the provision of social support and cohesion and the involvement of a synchronised activity, such as singing and dancing. Social identity theory identifies the extent to which group members form a shared social identity and determines whether being part of a group influences participants mental health [32]. Singing, due to its propensity to bond people has been established as an effective means of encouraging such identification [33]. Parent and baby groups are well placed to provide a group-based environment and are widely available in various formats involving music and singing for postnatal mothers to attend with their infant.

The purpose of reviewing the effect of mother-infant group music classes on postnatal depression through a systematic process, is to evidence the measured effect on maternal and infant outcomes. Following searches of Prospero and the Cochrane library for completed or ongoing reviews, no systematic review addressing the effect of mother-infant group music classes on postnatal depression were found and we therefore seek to bring evidence together within this systematic review to inform practice and future research within postnatal mental health. The added benefit of including qualitative studies in the review is to have the opportunity to consider existing research that has explored women’s perceptions, experiences, and perspectives of attending group music classes with their infant, which will allow further understanding of their feasibility and acceptability.

Systematically search and review research evidence that assesses the effect of mother-infant group music classes on postnatal depression for women ≤ 12 months post-partum with an infant aged ≤ 12 months (at enrolment), compared to women who have received standard care, a comparative intervention, no care or included a wait list control

Review process evaluations and qualitative studies conducted alongside studies eligible for inclusion

Interpret findings to inform future research and practice

Methods

This systematic review protocol has been developed according to the preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols (PRISMA-P) [34]. A PICOS (participants, interventions, comparators, outcomes, study design) framework was developed to identify criteria for study inclusion as follows:

Inclusion criteria

Participants

We will include studies that recruited women ≤ 12 months post-partum with an infant aged ≤ 12 months at enrolment. We will also include women who were enrolled in the antenatal period, but the intervention phase commenced in the postnatal period. We will include studies whether or not study eligibility criteria required women to be screened and meet a given threshold for outcomes of interest on recruitment, such as postnatal depression or anxiety.

Interventions

We will focus on studies that consist of a mother-infant group intervention lasting between 6–12 weeks in duration, that comprises of an intervention including music only or in a multi component format where a significant proportion of the intervention includes music.

Comparators

Comparators will include groups of women who have received standard care, a comparative intervention, no care or included a wait list control.

Postnatal depression

Primary outcome

We will include any outcome measure for postnatal depression, including but not limited to clinically validated assessment tools, such as the such as the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fifth edition (DSM-5), and self-reported measurement tools.

Secondary outcomes

Maternal outcomes:

Maternal stress/anxiety

Parenting stress

Parenting competence, confidence, or self-efficacy

Perceived social support

Maternal-infant interaction/bonding

Infant/child outcomes:

Cognitive development

Behaviour

Social and emotional development

Recruitment rate

Adherence and participation rates

Attrition and retention rates and reasons for dropout

Mothers’ satisfaction with the intervention

Women >12 months postpartum with an infant >12 months at enrolment

Interventions that contain only one song, one episode of music listening or one episode of music making as it will not represent the majority of the intervention format

Studies without a control group

Exclusion criteria

Studies will be included that use standardised measurement tools that provide continuous or dichotomous outcome data for all maternal and infant/child outcome measures.

The timing of the first outcome assessment must be < 3 months post-intervention. There will be no limit on the timing of the final follow up to allow longer follow up durations to be included in the review. However, for the purposes of the meta-analysis, we will extract outcome data at, or nearest to, the following time points: immediately post-intervention, at 3, 6, 12, 18 and 24 months post-intervention.

We will include randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised controlled trials. The Canada’s Drug and Health Technology Agency (CADTH) search filter will be utilised which is sensitive to searching for non-randomised controlled trials, as well as RCTs.

Process evaluations and qualitative studies conducted alongside studies eligible for inclusion will also be reviewed to provide useful insight on the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention and study in terms of recruitment, adherence, attrition, retention, and satisfaction with the intervention. For example, the timing and setting of the intervention in included studies; level of adherence to the intervention by those randomly assigned to the experimental group and reasons for adherence/non-adherence.

Due to its multi-disciplinary nature, one of the many challenges within arts in health research is the many fields in which it is spread; arts, public health, medicine, wellbeing, and psychology [19]. Therefore, searches of a range of databases are required that will capture the broad spectrum of this topic. Electronic bibliographic databases will include Medline, Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), PsycINFO, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Web of Science, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS), Maternity and Infant Care, and discipline specific journals for music. In addition, backward and forward searching of reference lists of included studies will be conducted, a search of unpublished / grey literature through Conference Proceedings Citation Index, Google Scholar, OpenGrey, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, and clinical trial databases, such as clinicaltrials.gov, will be completed.

Medical subject headings (MeSH) were used to develop the list of search terms supplemented with text word terms to capture as wide a range of records as possible. Search terms include—Women, Mothers, Infant, Mother-infant, Postpartum period, Postnatal care, Music, Music therapy, Dancing, Randomized Controlled Trials, Random Allocation, Systematic review. An example of search terms and syntax used for MEDLINE (Table 1). Databases will be searched from inception. No restrictions will be imposed regarding language or year of publication.

Table 1

Search terms and syntax for database searches, example from MEDLINE.

MEDLINE® Search

1 Women/2 Mothers/3 Caregivers/4 Parents/5 maternal (ti,ab,hw,kf,kw)6 mother-infant (ti,ab,hw,kf,kw)7 OR/1-68 exp Infant/9 exp Infant, Newborn/10 baby (ti,ab,hw,kf,kw)11 babies (ti,ab,hw,kf,kw)12 toddler (ti,ab,hw,kf,kw)13 child 0–2 (ti,ab,hw,kf,kw)14 OR/8-1315 exp Music/16 exp Music Therapy/17 Dancing/18 Singing/19 Acoustics/20 Sound/21 sing (ti,ab,hw,kf,kw)22 song (ti,ab,hw,kf,kw)23 rhythm (ti,ab,hw,kf,kw)24 melody (ti,ab,hw,kf,kw)25 lullaby (ti,ab,hw,kf,kw)26 OR/15-2527 postnatal (ti,ab,hw,kf,kw)28 Postnatal Care/29 postnatal period (ti,ab,hw,kf,kw)30 postnatal mothers (ti,ab,hw,kf,kw)31 Postpartum Period/32 postpartum mothers (ti,ab,hw,kf,kw)33 Perinatal Care/34 OR/27-3335 (randomized controlled trial or controlled clinical trial or pragmatic clinical trial or equivalence trial or clinical trial, phase III).pt.36 Randomized Controlled Trial/37 exp Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic/38 "randomized controlled trial" (ti,ab,hw,kf,kw)39 exp Controlled Clinical Trial/40 "controlled clinical trial" (ti,ab,hw,kf,kw)41 Random Allocation/42 Double-Blind Method/43 double blind procedure (ti,ab,hw,kf,kw)44 double-blind studies (ti,ab,hw,kf,kw)45 Single-Blind Method/46 single blind procedure (ti,ab,hw,kf,kw)47 single-blind studies (ti,ab,hw,kf,kw)48 Placebos/49 placebo (ti,ab,hw,kf,kw)50 Control Groups/51 control group (ti,ab,hw,kf,kw)52 (random* or sham or placebo*) (ti,ab,hw,kf,kw)53 ((singl* or doubl*) adj (blind* or dumm* or mask*)) (ti,ab,hw,kf,kw)54 (Nonrandom* or non random* or non-random* or quasi -random* or quasirandom*) (ti,ab,hw,kf,kw)55 Allocated (ti,ab,hw)56 ((open label or open-label) adj5 (study or studies or trial*)) (ti,ab,hw,kf,kw)57 ((equivalence or superiority or non-inferiority) adj3 (study or studies or trial*)) (ti,ab,hw,kf,kw)58 (pragmatic study or pragmatic studies) (ti,ab,hw,kf,kw)59 ((pragmatic or practical) adj3 trial*) (ti,ab,hw,kf,kw)60 ((quasiexperimental or quasi-experimental) adj3 (study or studies or trial*)) (ti,ab,hw,kf,kw)61 (phase adj3 (III or "3") adj3 (study or studies or trial*)) (ti,ab,hw,kf,kw)62 "systematic review"/63 OR/35-6264 7 and 14 and 26 and 34 and 63

We will use the Covidence online software platform for importing eligible studies, removing duplicates, screening titles and abstracts, and for full text review. Following removal of duplicates, two authors (CC and FL) will independently screen titles and abstracts for 10% of records and assess level of agreement. This process will continue in increments of 5% until at least 80% agreement is reached, after which the lead reviewer (CC) will continue to screen the remaining titles and abstracts. At full text stage, each record will be independently screened by two authors. Any disagreements will be resolved by discussion and consensus of the review team. To ensure the transparent reporting of identified studies, we will include a PRISMA flow chart in the systematic review, which will illustrate the article selection process [35]. This flow chart will map out the number of studies identified, included and excluded at each stage, and reasons for exclusion at full text review.

A standardised data extraction form will be agreed prior to commencement to ensure data extraction is consistent. Data from multiple reports from the same study will be extracted using a single data extraction form. Data extraction for each study will be conducted independently by two authors (CC and FL/JM) using Covidence software. Extracted data will include the title, authors, year of publication, location of study, population (participant socio demographic characteristics; sample size—initial and final, participant level of postnatal depression, if reported), intervention type and dosage, control group type and dosage, outcomes (measures; time interval of measurement; instruments used), type of analysis, results, recruitment rates, adherence rates, attrition/retention rates, and reasons if given. Outcome data will be exported to Review Manager 5 software for analysis. Any unreported outcome data will not be requested from the study investigators due to the time constraints of the primary author’s PhD studies.

To comprehensively describe each intervention analysed within the systematic review, the Cochrane’s Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide [36] will be utilised, this will aid a standardised assessment and quality assurance.

Risk of bias will be independently assessed by two authors using the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Risk of Bias tool [37] for randomised controlled trials and the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies—of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool for non-randomised studies [38]. Each study will be evaluated by considering the six bias domains: selection, performance, detection, attrition, reporting and other. Any disagreement will be resolved by discussion and consensus reached. Studies will be classified as at low, uncertain, or high risk of bias according to the criteria and using the traffic light system, this will inform data synthesis by illustrating the overall quality of the studies.

For continuous data, the mean and standard deviation (SD) for each group and group size will be extracted and mean differences calculated. For dichotomous data, the number with each event and sample size will be extracted and odds ratios calculated.

If sufficient studies of similar interventions are available, we will use meta-analysis to combine, compare and summarise the results of the studies so more precise estimates of the effects can be made in terms of the population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes. We will prioritise RCT data for the meta-analysis. If non-randomised controlled trials are identified, they will be synthesised separately through a narrative summary. The studies used must compare the same type of intervention and measure the same outcomes. When outcomes are measured on the same scale, the mean difference (MD) will be calculated and if studies use different scales to measure the same outcome, we will calculate the standardised mean difference (SMD) and corresponding 95% CI for continuous outcomes. In addition to this, differences between duration of intervention, type of setting, group size, and type of facilitator between studies will be assessed via subgroup analysis to establish what has yielded the most significant retention and satisfaction outcomes.

Where meta-analysis is not possible, results will be reported through qualitative narrative data synthesis following the principles of thematic analysis [39]. Papers will be read closely, and an index paper will be identified that reflects the focus of the review most accurately. Then themes and findings will be coded, and an initial thematic framework will be created on a spreadsheet. All remaining papers will be coded and mapped onto this framework. This process will identify similarities and differences in emerging themes. Once the framework is agreed by all authors (CC, FL and JM), the Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research (GRADE-CERQual) framework for systematically assessing confidence in review findings will be used to establish methodological limitations, coherence, adequacy of data and relevance [40]. Consensus between two authors (CC and FL/JM) will be agreed following this process. Review findings will be graded for confidence using a classification system of high, moderate, low or very low confidence. The use of the GRADE-CERQual approach is to produce transparent judgement about confidence in qualitative evidence and facilitate the use of qualitative evidence to address a range of issues, including the acceptability and feasibility of interventions [40].

Assessment of heterogeneity

If the number of included studies is low or has small sample sizes, statistical tests for heterogeneity may have low power and be difficult to interpret [37]. If there are sufficient studies to perform a meta-analysis, an assessment of heterogeneity will be conducted by visually examining forest plots for consistency of results and by calculating the I2 statistic, which represents the percentage of effect estimate variability that is due to heterogeneity instead of sampling error [37].

Subgroup analyses

It is intended to complete analyses of subgroups, to assess intervention effects for specific characteristics of the participants.

The following characteristics will be used for subgroup analysis;

women were ≤6 months postpartum at enrolment

at least 70% of women recruited met at least one baseline characteristic representative of social disadvantage; <20 years of age, ethnic minority group, low-income household, or single parent household

women with an existing diagnosis of a mental health condition

Women recruited were screened and met a given threshold for postnatal depression, in accordance with the inclusion criteria for the study.

Sensitivity analysis

If sufficient studies are obtained, sensitivity analysis will be conducted to examine the impact of a high risk of bias. We will systematically remove studies with high selection, performance, attrition, detection and reporting bias. Funnel plots will be used to determine publication bias. The potential impact on the findings when assessing the risk of bias will be reported on. For example, whether the results from the meta-analysis are robust following exclusion of studies that are at high risk of attrition bias.

Patient and public involvement

The proposed study is a systematic review of the literature, to gain insight for future studies and research. Hartbeeps, a third sector organisation established worldwide providing weekly music-based parent and infant/child interventions will be consulted for assistance with interpretation of findings in relation to the interventions used in the studies and with the components of those interventions.

Discussion

The proposed systematic review will provide evidence of effect of music-based parent/infant interventions aimed at mothers within the postnatal period (≤12 months) and the maternal psychological and psychosocial outcomes the studies measure and report. Infant/child outcomes will also be reported. The overview of included studies will include the country of origin and similarities and differences in their national maternity policy approach to identify the context in which the population sits. It will offer information on the types of intervention currently explored within global experimental research, what components are mostly commonly used in the format of the music-based intervention, the feasibility of the intervention within the target population group in terms of recruitment, participation, retention and acceptability, and the extent and diversity of the psychological and psychosocial outcomes they measure. This understanding of the current evidence base will provide a solid foundation of knowledge to guide further experimental study.

Dissemination

The protocol and systematic review will be completed as part of a PhD study conducted within the School of Nursing and Midwifery at Queens University, Belfast, Northern Ireland. Findings will be disseminated via academic audiences, relevant stakeholders and service users and social media.

PRISMA-P checklist.

(DOC)

Click here for additional data file.

2 May 2022

The effect of mother-infant group music classes on postnatal depression – a systematic review protocol

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Colella,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

We would like you to focus especially on the comments of reviewer 1. Please be as clear as possible on the inclusion criteria for the publications, e.g. the diagnostic characteristics of the patients, randomization, and control conditions. Also, please state how potential biases might be dealt with.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 16 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Astrid M. Kamperman

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

3. Please note that in order to use the direct billing option the corresponding author must be affiliated with the chosen institute. Please either amend your manuscript to change the affiliation or corresponding author, or email us at plosone@plos.org with a request to remove this option.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does the manuscript provide a valid rationale for the proposed study, with clearly identified and justified research questions?

The research question outlined is expected to address a valid academic problem or topic and contribute to the base of knowledge in the field.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Is the protocol technically sound and planned in a manner that will lead to a meaningful outcome and allow testing the stated hypotheses?

The manuscript should describe the methods in sufficient detail to prevent undisclosed flexibility in the experimental procedure or analysis pipeline, including sufficient outcome-neutral conditions (e.g. necessary controls, absence of floor or ceiling effects) to test the proposed hypotheses and a statistical power analysis where applicable. As there may be aspects of the methodology and analysis which can only be refined once the work is undertaken, authors should outline potential assumptions and explicitly describe what aspects of the proposed analyses, if any, are exploratory.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception, at the time of publication. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above and, if applicable, provide comments about issues authors must address before this protocol can be accepted for publication. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about research or publication ethics.

You may also provide optional suggestions and comments to authors that they might find helpful in planning their study.

(Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Review: The effect of mother-infant group music classes on postnatal depression – a systematic review protocol

Altogether, I think this is an interesting research proposal with direct impact on clinical and societal practice. The authors propose a thorough systematic review that follows all relevant guidelines, and I believe that it is a well thought-out setup. I also appreciate the intersectional approach of the proposed analysis, where the authors propose to also look at mothers who are socially disadvantaged.

However, I do think there are some concerns that the authors should address in their study. These are mainly concerned with the inclusion criteria regarding postpartum depression and the risk of selection bias and drop-outs in the studies that are included in the review, which could skew the overall results. I believe that taking these factors into account could improve the quality and generalizability of this study.

- One of the main outcomes of the study is postnatal depression. Could the authors maybe specify which kind of outcomes they will include? Will they only include studies that conducted clinical interviews or clinically validated questionnaires, or will they also include studies that used other questions to measure postpartum depression?

- I see that the inclusion criteria also do not contain a “threshold” or criterium for postpartum depression. Do the authors propose to include all studies that look at effects of music classes on postnatal depression, even when the studies only included women without postpartum depression? Or do they plan to only include studies which included women with postpartum depression, and if so, what are the diagnosis criteria?

o A short note on the reporting of the participant demographics:

I think it is also important to report participants’ level of postpartum depression before the onset of the study, so that it is clear to which postpartum depression group the results can be generalized.

- I see that the authors propose to include all studies on group music classes, regardless of the setting in which the class is organized. This might induce a possible “interest bias”, where mothers who are actively seeking out music classes are more likely to participate and benefit from the classes. Do the authors plan on addressing a form of “interest bias”, meaning women who are more interested in the classes might join the classes?

o This form of interest bias could be accounted for through only including studies which have a control group or “regular care” group as comparison group, but the authors propose to also include studies that have no control group. Do they plan on conducting separate meta-analyses or comparisons for studies with or without a control group?

- My other concern in the included studies is the amount of time and effort it will take the participating mothers to participate in the music classes. These classes could take quite some time, maybe during the day on work days, meaning that maybe mothers with more time on their hands and mothers who feel more motivated and “up for it” might be more likely to complete the study. This could introduce a form of selective drop-out bias, where mothers who have less time or energy might be more likely to drop out.

o How do the authors plan on addressing drop-out participants per study, and the possible bias this introduces in the results?

- Motherhood and maternity leave are also very dependent on national contexts. The authors do propose to do a subgroup analysis for studies which include socially disadvantaged mothers, but do they plan on accounting for or reporting other international differences, such as national policies on maternity leave or the amount of involvement of the other parent?

o It could be interesting to report the setting in which participating mothers are in, for example, do the music classes take place in the evenings or during maternity leave so that they do not have to take time off work?

Altogether, I appreciate the rather practical approach of the proposed review. I believe that this study could be an interesting starting point to consider the feasibility of music classes for women with postpartum depression, especially considering the possible improvement of social support and maternal-infant bonding for participating women. I wish the researchers the best of luck with this interesting line of research!

Reviewer #2: I thank the Editor and authors for the opportunity to review a manuscript. The paper has overall a very good technical content and it’s easily readable. I congratulate the authors on a very interesting proposal of a systematic review with a meta-analysis. I also believe the importance of this review paper. I offer the following minor comments.

1. The authors provided information for the review in the context of what is already known. However, they wrote that “are not aware of any systematic reviews specifically addressing the effect of mother-infant group music classes on postnatal depression”. It was not clearly stated in the manuscript that a search of resources for existing or ongoing reviews was taken. I recommend to add information what kind of resources/databases have been checked to ensure the current review is justified.

2. I would recommend to consider the piloting the study selection process by applying the inclusion criteria to a sample of papers in order to check that they can be reliably interpreted and that they classify the studies appropriately.

3. Please state how extracting data from multiple reports of the same study will be done (Each report separately, then combine information across multiple data collection forms OR data from all reports directly into a single data collection form.)

4. Please expand all abbreviations used in the manuscript. eg, EPDS, GAD 7, PHQ-9 was not explained while WHO abbreviation was introduced two times.

5. I found that a searching strategy is dedicated to RCTs, and since the authors plan to include non-randomized studies as well, it might be wise to not add keywords as “Randomized Controlled Trials” or “Random Allocation”.

6. At the same time, I would be pleased if the authors could consider to restrict the eligibility criteria to RCTs only for the reliability of the data. And if so, my previous comment (no 5) would be not relevant then.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Łucja Bieleninik

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Submitted filename: Peer review PLOS one _complete.docx

Click here for additional data file.

1 Jul 2022

Please see attached document 'Response to Reviewers' for all required actions.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers .docx

Click here for additional data file.

12 Aug 2022

The effect of mother-infant group music classes on postnatal depression – a systematic review protocol

PONE-D-21-35789R1

Dear Dr. Colella,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Jianhong Zhou

Staff Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does the manuscript provide a valid rationale for the proposed study, with clearly identified and justified research questions?

The research question outlined is expected to address a valid academic problem or topic and contribute to the base of knowledge in the field.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Is the protocol technically sound and planned in a manner that will lead to a meaningful outcome and allow testing the stated hypotheses?

The manuscript should describe the methods in sufficient detail to prevent undisclosed flexibility in the experimental procedure or analysis pipeline, including sufficient outcome-neutral conditions (e.g. necessary controls, absence of floor or ceiling effects) to test the proposed hypotheses and a statistical power analysis where applicable. As there may be aspects of the methodology and analysis which can only be refined once the work is undertaken, authors should outline potential assumptions and explicitly describe what aspects of the proposed analyses, if any, are exploratory.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception, at the time of publication. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above and, if applicable, provide comments about issues authors must address before this protocol can be accepted for publication. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about research or publication ethics.

You may also provide optional suggestions and comments to authors that they might find helpful in planning their study.

(Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: I think the authors provided very well-thought out and thorough answers to the reviewer comments, and their clarifications have improved the proposal strongly. I wish them the best of luck conducting this interesting review!

Reviewer #2: Dear authors,

thank you for your careful revision of your manuscript. It was a pleasure to read this revised manuscript, and I appreciate the author’s consideration of my previous feedback. This manuscript is stronger since the initial submission. All comments have been addressed satisfactorily.

Best regards!

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

23 Aug 2022

PONE-D-21-35789R1

The effect of mother-infant group music classes on postnatal depression – a systematic review protocol

Dear Dr. Colella:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Astrid M. Kamperman

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE